Forcing Americans To Buy Insurance Will Not Survive Court Challenge

[deportliberals]

The one that will be set when someone sues over the "mandate" and some liberal judge accepts the liberal argument as to how it isn't a manafdate because you can pay a tax to opt-out.

YOU claimed above this issue which hasn't even been given "legal standing" is one step away from stare decisis.  Stare decisis means the doctrine of "precedent." Since it is your claim that it is one step away from stare decisis do share with us which precedent you're talking about?  Your turn.

The part where you wrote, "leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected" without saying WHY it should be rejected.

Already covered that in another post.

[deportliberals]

Dude, take your toys and go home already.  It's not as if you're held here against your will.  Log out, delete, tell your mom you're going to the store for more Cheetos.  It's okay.

Why don't you grow the hell up?!

Oh, and you are aware that the SCOTUS has reversed itself something like 140-150 times over the past 60 years, right?

Never happened!  SCOTUS never reversed 140 to 150 times.  You enjoy making sh*t up?

Would you like a few examples?

How's about:

Texas vs. Johnson

Brown vs. Board of Education

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...SCOTUS reversed on Brown?..ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Of course none of your cites have anything to do with the mandate issue.

Or the fact that our own Chief Justice, John Roberts, would likely rule to uphold Roe vs. Wade because of it?  

Actually Roe v Wade was almost overturned by SCOTUS in 2005.  Didn't know that did you?  Know which justice saved it at the last moment???   

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Oh ok.  In the future I'll make sure that instead of reading what you write, I'll try to crawl in your head and extrapolate what you actually meant to write based on some scenario you're imagining in your head.  My deepest apologies.   

 

No! Don't go in there! It's full of angry kittens with "Vote for Ron Paul" buttons.

 

YOU claimed above this issue which hasn't even been given "legal standing" is one step away from stare decisis.  Stare decisis means the doctrine of "precedent." Since it is your claim that it is one step away from stare decisis do share with us which precedent you're talking about?  Your turn.

I know what stare decisis means. Calm down long enough to pay attention.

If this law passes and it gets challenged there is a very strong likelihood that a judge could rule the "opt-out tax" (as I term the perceived liberal rebuttal to the challenge) doesn't make it a mandate. Once that ruling comes in the precedent has been set and that makes repeal of this...or any other asinine liberal "mandate" sure to follow...all the more difficult.

That is what I meant, that is what I wrote.

Already covered that in another post.

All we can find is you saying it's to be rejected with no reasoning as to why.

We still want to know what your reply would be to the liberal double-speak argument that the opt-out tax keeps the "mandate" from becoming a "mandate".

[deportliberals]

Oh ok.  In the future I'll make sure that instead of reading what you write

You did not do that..."read what I wrote"!   Mine was a generic statement that said nothing about litigation or SCOTUS. That YOU elected put that interpretation on it is not my problem.  Next time frame it as a question and then I'll let you know if you have it right...assume nothing.

[Chris_]

Damn, I'm so happy there's an <IGNORE> button here.

Ahhhhhhh, blessed silence.

[Chump]

Damn, I'm so happy there's an <IGNORE> button here.

Ahhhhhhh, blessed silence.

 

[deportliberals]

I know what stare decisis means. Calm down long enough to pay attention.

Your above statements ,as written, show that you do not know what stare decisis means.  That's why I defined it for you.

If this law passes and it gets challenged there is a very strong likelihood that a judge could rule the "opt-out tax" (as I term the perceived liberal rebuttal to the challenge) doesn't make it a mandate. Once that ruling comes in the precedent has been set and that makes repeal of this...or any other asinine liberal "mandate" sure to follow...all the more difficult.

That works!  To undo it would take a reversal or congress to pass law overruling such a decision.  If we had a proper congress, it would move under Art III and prevent the supreme court from ever hearing the case in the frist place.  Congress retains the jurisdictional scope for SCOTUS under Art III...in short...it can tell SCOTUS what cases in can and cannot hear.

All we can find is you saying it's to be rejected with no reasoning as to why.

As I said, that was a generic statement(not talking about litigation) where I simply noted that the lefties lie and spin to bastardize language and concepts.

We still want to know what your reply would be to the liberal double-speak argument that the opt-out tax keeps the "mandate" from becoming a "mandate".

The counterpoint to the lefties spin will be (1) feds unconstitutionally forcing americans for the first time to buy a product millions don't want and then economically penalizing them if they refuse.  This will involve legal rangling over the Commerce Clause as well as the 10th and 14th amendments.  Does this answer your question?

[deportliberals]

Damn, I'm so happy there's an <IGNORE> button here.

Ahhhhhhh, blessed silence.

So why don't you use IT?  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The counterpoint to the lefties spin will be (1) feds unconstitutionally forcing americans for the first time to buy a product millions don't want and then economically penalizing them if they refuse.  This will involve legal rangling over the Commerce Clause as well as the 10th and 14th amendments.  Does this answer your question?

Actually no and I'm not saying that to be a dick. Yes, I am a dick but not in this instance.

Your answer would be exactly the basis of the challenge against the mandate. We've already pre-supposed your response. The response I and bkg offered was the repsonse.

In my first post to the OP I noted that here in Colorado the government is constitutionally forbidden to raises taxes unless they hold a state-wide referendum. The shit-tards got around that by raising fees whenever they want to.

Therefore, since I and others wholly expect the liberals to deny that their mandate is a mandate I expect them to claim the opt-out fee/tax is NOT a legal penalty and that any legal penalty imposed isn't for failing to accept a mandate--which they will stridently refuse to call a mandate--but is a legal penalty for paying a duly imposed tax.

It would be nice to think the 10th and 14th are our safeguards but after decades of Roe v Wade, Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, Lawrence v Texas etc one should never underestimate the power of moral reletavists to bastardize language to their advantage.

Jesus saves by grace because the devil already has all the best lawyers.

[deportliberals]

Your answer would be exactly the basis of the challenge against the mandate. We've already pre-supposed your response.

Pre-suppose my response?  I brought the Op-ed as my response.  It clearly laid out the details, noted the legal issues and then broached the legal aspects.     

In my first post to the OP I noted that here in Colorado the government is constitutionally forbidden to raises taxes unless they hold a state-wide referendum. The shit-tards got around that by raising fees whenever they want to.

I saw that ,as I said, but it had no application to the "private mandate" as written in HR 3200.

Therefore, since I and others wholly expect the liberals to deny that their mandate is a mandate I expect them to claim the opt-out fee/tax is NOT a legal penalty

As written it is defined as a "surtax" but it is "punitive" and because it is punitive that is what will make it difficult to defend in court.  So, we have a first time ever situation where the feds are (1) forcing americans to buy a product all the major polls say they don't want and (2) penalizing them if they don't. 
 

t would be nice to think the 10th and 14th are our safeguards but after decades of Roe v Wade, Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, Lawrence v Texas etc one should never underestimate the power of moral reletavists to bastardize language to their advantage.

True! Those decisions are terrible bastardizations of the constitution.  Further, they denied the american people their rightful say via their representatives on such matters.  However, as I pointed out, unknown to many, Roe v Wade was almost  overturned in 2005 but Anthony Kennedy backed out at the last minute and made it a 5 to 4 split decision.

I hoping for the Roberts court to refuse jurisdiction on some of the upcoming leftie whines thus forcing the issue back to the legislature where they have a rough time getting their amoral bastardizations put into law.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Pre-suppose my response?  I brought the Op-ed as my response.  It clearly laid out the details, noted the legal issues and then broached the legal aspects.

Either way... bkg and I accept your contention and offered our response in the voice of double-plus good lib-speak.

There is another thread in this sub-forum about how people are being charged a fee for stormwater run-off. It was noted that in addition to this fee that is charged to homeowners the developer already paid a fee for the exact same issue so the gov't is double-dipping and worse you aren't allowed to cistern the water that you have to pay a fee for if it becomes runoff. In other words: they are quite capable of tremendous amounts of legal contortionism to secure their agendas. They will use this contortion to argue there is no mandate, merely a legal fee--aking to the fees charges for your homes impact on rainwater runoff--that requires you to pay for your impact on the health system. No legal penalty, just a fee. Kinda like when they charge you fees for airport security. Don't like it? Don't fly.

Ergo, to claim the mandate is not a mandate because you can pay to opt out is a scary, highly-probable legalist mechanism to skirt the constitution.

What frightens me all the more is that if the libs squeeze this turd past some asshole judge they can claim stare decisis and unleash an unholy torrent of mandates-that-are-not-mandates.

I think it's wrong constitutionally, ethically and even pragmatically (if the gov't actually could hand out free shit would we really complain?...we hate socialism because it has a 100% failure rate). Alas, where we think the meddling should end is where the disconnect with gov't begins. "Consent of the governed" is in pretty poor repair these days.

[bkg]

Either way... bkg and I accept your contention and offered our response in the voice of double-plus good lib-speak.

<snip>

I think it's wrong constitutionally, ethically and even pragmatically (if the gov't actually could hand out free shit would we really complain?...we hate socialism because it has a 100% failure rate). Alas, where we think the meddling should end is where the disconnect with gov't begins. "Consent of the governed" is in pretty poor repair these days.

I've given up, dude. You and I fully understand the situation, but Mr. Ego simply can't, or chooses not, to grasp the fact that the Libs and Lawyers don't give a crap about his or a dictionaries definition of mandate. Since SCOTUS has upheld Congress's ability to tax-at-will, I see a very narrow, but solid line for COngress to get this through SCOTUS and deamed Constitutional. The opt-out is really all they needed. The taxation aspect of that opt-out will be deemed Constitutional. It makes no difference whe you, I or Mr. Ego think about it.

[NHSparky]

Your above statements ,as written, show that you do not know what stare decisis means.  That's why I defined it for you.

And it's pretty obvious that you haven't the foggiest of what it means either, junior.  Now back inside before I decide to play Whack-a-Troll with ya.

[NHSparky]

So why don't you use IT?  

Because you're a ****ing train wreck, and as much as we want to turn away and ignore the carnage and bloodshed, the curiosity factor is just too compelling.  Frankly, it's amazing how someone as stupid and obtuse as you manages to find time to post in between job hunts, considering you probably piss everyone off at any position you take within about the first 12 minutes.